Have you bothered reading the PDF ? It has a quite long description of the deorbiting parameters, which involve putting them in elliptic orbit with perigee of 300km, meaning if they miss and only reach 400km, they're only good for 2.9 years before orbital decay.

I made some calculations, lowering the perigee from 1075km to 3000km is actually relatively cheap, some 200m/s Delta V. Depending on the Isp of the engine, and the total mass (not clear if the 386kg are with or without propellant), we're speaking of 25-40kg op propellant. Make that 30-50kg and aeorbraking is not even needed because you're impacting the ground. Barely significant compared to the total mass.

This does raise the question why someone you would want to pressure into voting for Turd would bother going to the polls and vote for someone else than Douche. If he's been there and voting is secret, you still can be sure he voted for Douche. That's also why voting is mandatory in some actual democracies (*).

(*) In the case of Belgium, it's even more perverse than this: when universal suffrage was introduced, the Left would have been enough class conscious to have fought their way to the voting booth. Mandatory universal suffrage was introduced to mitigate this by having the catholic majority go and vote as the priest told them to.

Trump has been campaigning to get some people to change their votes. Apparently several states allow that. But how can you enforce vote secrecy and modifications at the same time?As for booth selfies, display the voter's choice up until reaching the confirmation screen, then don't display it afterwards.

10km/day for 2000 days is only 20000km. The tyres are just fine. It's the same reason gas was rationed during WW2. No need to ration tyres if your car can only go so far as your energy storage will allow.

Shall we continue to get killed because it is easier to produce aircraft with a design from 1950s?

At a rate of about 700 deaths for about 3 billion passengers (both yearly averages). That's less than 0.3 ppm.

What industry would completely redesign itself and increase its costs by even 1% (this would probably be more like 20% plus the fix cost of the changes) to reduce its failure rate to below the current 0.3ppm (and then again, not necessarily to zero, as the last few year's crashed are not related to the kind where this system would help)?

This is merely interesting as an exercise for students. Studying concepts not viable in the industry is a laudable, but idiosyncratic purpose of academia; a bit like Smalltalk for instance.

I'm also not surprised it was made into an autoplaying video idiots share on Facebook.